Physics is in crisis. Quantum cosmology can save it and point us...

The silliness of the skeptic movement is another aspect. Why go after palm readers and miss all the shady research practices in science itself, from academia to business? If they are guardians of good science, as they like to claim, seems like missing the forest fire for the sake of pruning a tree here & there...

My problem is that I haven't a clue how much of modern (since about 1960?) is true.

As machines become more and more expensive the pressure on those who work with them to produce 'exciting' results must be enormous. This is almost bound to distort the results or their interpretation.

Theorists seem wedded to extremely fancy mathematical models, and that also introduces a bias.

Nothing in recent physics has any relevance to anything. I mean you might expect that finding the particle that gives mass to everything (the Higgs) would unleash a mass of new (possibly very dangerous) applications.

It doesn't seem to work like that any more.

I hope they don't build a larger version of the LHC.

David

A bit of an intractable thing to contemplate of course.  What have you learned about who the "theys" are and what their motivation is in having us "create it" for them (whatever that might mean)?

Unfortunately those are not the right questions...

You can't be told it... all you can do is search for it... something to do with learning it for your self... because the path is different for everyone... we're all unique... and convincing your self is the issue, you can't find it here or there, and any explanations I offer won't work for you.

For my self, I wasn't able to get there in comfort. I think I had to feel the pain of the inconsistencies to be motivated to search for answers. I was already searching at age 9 and finding the problems, and even some of the lies. Grasping some things, and having experiences. It's also been a process of swapping back and forth between solitude and society, creation vs moderate consumption. I can't quite put my finger on exactly when I was introduced to The Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas translations, probably around 2005, but since then, they have been something like a compass or map for me. One I may only dip into once or twice a year now a days, generating a niggle in me when a certain sayings meaning is unsatisfactory. I think they are a treasure.

Anyway, I just felt like sharing that.

For me personally I'd say it's less a group that is like a cabal and more people who have certain desires about how the world should be interpreted. Kastrup once said it's not a conspiracy but more a confluence of individuals who share the same or at least overlapping pattern of belief.

I don't know if all these people feel we can create our reality by group consensus in the sense of literally changing this what is real, but they seem to definitely want us to believe there is no God, no soul, no aspect of life that isn't bound by classical physics...beyond that they seem to think a utopia can be built via technology no matter how many driverless cars ram into cyclists...

I wouldn't even say all these people want all these goals, but enough overlap happens. I mean why is there resistance to the idea that brain processes might be quantum in nature if materialism would still be true? Because you can convince the public that we are deterministic machines with greater ease than you can convince them all science and art is just arising from lucky random blips in the quantum level. 

The silliness of the skeptic movement is another aspect. Why go after palm readers and miss all the shady research practices in science itself, from academia to business? If they are guardians of good science, as they like to claim, seems like missing the forest fire for the sake of pruning a tree here & there...

I agree with much of that... the theys have the knowledge... and if they don't, or won't, go though, that's their prerogative... but they won't let anyone else go though either... they constantly worry the animals, and won't let them feed in peace... it's done to hide the truth from your self... on this point, the theys agree, even though they still bite and scratch at each other.

My problem is that I haven't a clue how much of modern (since about 1960?) is true.

A ton.  I mean let's not fall into hyperbole here.  A simple look at the technological advancements in, literally, all phases of modern life tell us that the science and engineering sector gets a lot of things right.

Unfortunately those are not the right questions...

Well, those are my questions in response to what I interpreted as a clear allusion to some overarching, controlling group you've labeled "theys".  I'm fine with either a) not being wise/intelligent enough to parse out from vague language what you're communicating or b) your not being able/open to answering the questions plainly.  Its all good.

A ton.  I mean let's not fall into hyperbole here.  A simple look at the technological advancements in, literally, all phases of modern life tell us that the science and engineering sector gets a lot of things right.


Well, those are my questions in response to what I interpreted as a clear allusion to some overarching, controlling group you've labeled "theys".  I'm fine with either a) not being wise/intelligent enough to parse out from vague language what you're communicating or b) your not being able/open to answering the questions plainly.  Its all good.

I understand, and it's definitely b)

A ton.  I mean let's not fall into hyperbole here.  A simple look at the technological advancements in, literally, all phases of modern life tell us that the science and engineering sector gets a lot of things right.

Every area of clear technological advancement is clearly the result of reliable science - but that is basically because the science is kept honest by the fact that stuff has to work - no ifs, no buts.

The problem is that a great deal of science doesn't have an immediate technological spinoff, and it isn't constrained by the need for stuff to work.

Nothing is going to stop working if there wasn't a Big Bang, or if natural selection is too weak to enable organisms to evolve, or if the Higgs particle doesn't exist, or is not responsible for the masses of other particles (whatever that means exactly), or ..........